Questions relative to fabrics found in movie theaters

[highfigh]

Sound should be natural. If you look through a window, you should see exactly what is outside. If the window is blue, then you have colored your perspective. Same thing with sound. Every part of the signal chain, including the room, should be neutral, if accurate reproduction is your goal.

'Natural', to whom? Using your window view analogy, do all people see colors the same and in focus, equally? No, and we don't all hear equally well. Electronics can be neutral, acoustics rarely isn't. Change the temperature, humidity, air pressure- the sound will change. Might not be very obvious, but it will change. Add or subtrack furniture, close doors & windows and have people coming & going, the sound will change. Sound isn't static, it's variable.

 

[highfigh]

It has no aesthetic purpose.

How do you like your leather seats acoustically?

If someone is sitting on one of those seats, the material doesn't matter- the person is absorbing the sound.

I used 'Sabine' in a previous post- theater seats are made to have the same effect on sound as a person, so the number of filled seats won't matter.

What is a Sabine in acoustics? - Birdful

A Sabine is a unit used to measure reverberation time in acoustics. Reverberation time refers to how long it takes for sound to decay or fade away after the

www.birdful.org

 

[ScareDe2]

If someone is sitting on one of those seats, the material doesn't matter- the person is absorbing the sound.

I used 'Sabine' in a previous post- theater seats are made to have the same effect on sound as a person, so the number of filled seats won't matter.

What is a Sabine in acoustics? - Birdful

A Sabine is a unit used to measure reverberation time in acoustics. Reverberation time refers to how long it takes for sound to decay or fade away after the

www.birdful.org

Let's talk about it. I can't use a pre-measured table of absorption coefficients for a given fabric. Since the fabric varies in density and quality, it varies in its ability to impact sound. Also, Sabine tries to predict the reverberation for the entire room but doesn't take into account the listener's position, whether the sound is chaotically diffused rather than uniformly distributed, your speaker setup, etc., and of course, as the website says: it all depends on what sound you are after.

I see acoustics more as an art, where it's better to use your ear and taste. Maybe measurements can complement the work, but I don't see how I can do that myself. I only work with limited information and have no tool to measure reverberation here.

Although I like that it mentions soft fabric. One reason I think movie theaters today sound bad compared to vintage (at least the ones I’ve visited) is because they use more synthetic fabric, which is most cost-efficient. I know for a fact that some companies sell products advertised as professional material, and you said it yourself, while in fact—and you don't need any measuring tools to find out—their material has zero impact on the sound, and in some cases, it even worsens the acoustics.

 

[TLS Guy]

Let's talk about it. I can't use a pre-measured table of absorption coefficients for a given fabric. Since the fabric varies in density and quality, it varies in its ability to impact sound. Also, Sabine tries to predict the reverberation for the entire room but doesn't take into account the listener's position, whether the sound is chaotically diffused rather than uniformly distributed, your speaker setup, etc., and of course, as the website says: it all depends on what sound you are after.

I see acoustics more as an art, where it's better to use your ear and taste. Maybe measurements can complement the work, but I don't see how I can do that myself. I only work with limited information and have no tool to measure reverberation here.

Although I like that it mentions soft fabric. One reason I think movie theaters today sound bad compared to vintage (at least the ones I’ve visited) is because they use more synthetic fabric, which is most cost-efficient. I know for a fact that some companies sell products advertised as professional material, and you said it yourself, while in fact—and you don't need any measuring tools to find out—their material has zero impact on the sound, and in some cases, it even worsens the acoustics.

I think the major reason that older movie theaters sounded better, or at least had better dialog, was because of the speakers.

Most used Altec Voice of the Theater speakers.

These were actually incredibly good speakers, especially where intelligible speech is concerned.

They were highly sensitive and three of those speakers with 15 to 20 watt tube amps could easily fill even large cinemas.

I say three channel as those old theaters after the early fifties actually had three channel audio with a discrete center channel. This was part of the Cinema scope system. Later versions also had a mono surround channel.

Pre war there was one mono speaker behind the center of the screen.

That optical system actually had very good fidelity. Ampex also had three channel tape machines.

Robert Fine used those optical recorders, and the Ampex tape machines to make three channel recordings back in the fifties for Mercury Living Presence. They were mainly made with the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra, now the Minnesota Orchestra. Mercury released these recordings on SACD a few years ago, and they are very good. He used three Telefunken mics spaced across the front of the orchestra.

 

[ScareDe2]

I refer to the '90s, movie theaters likely built during the '70s and '80s, basically, before synthetic materials took over the world with their plastic. I don't think the vintage cinema here had these speakers you mention. And the lateral wall speakers were already the norm. To be honest, it remains to be seen/heard if these Altec speakers would produce good results in the current acoustic space. Because in my experience, the better the speaker, the worse the sound when surrounded by synthetics. This experience comes from my listening session at my nearest audio center, where they had $100k worth of equipment in a sterile place, and my work with the Yamaha NS-10 studio monitors at home. These can sound absolutely brilliant and "neutral," but it takes massive effort to create the space to make them sound good.

You said it yourself: accurate, sensitive, and powerful? That’s the perfect recipe for disaster.

 

[TLS Guy]

I refer to the '90s, movie theaters likely built during the '70s and '80s, basically, before synthetic materials took over the world with their plastic. I don't think the vintage cinema here had these speakers you mention. And the lateral wall speakers were already the norm. To be honest, it remains to be seen/heard if these Altec speakers would produce good results in the current acoustic space. Because in my experience, the better the speaker, the worse the sound when surrounded by synthetics. This experience comes from my listening session at my nearest audio center, where they had $100k worth of equipment in a sterile place, and my work with the Yamaha NS-10 studio monitors at home. These can sound absolutely brilliant and "neutral," but it takes massive effort to create the space to make them sound good.

You said it yourself: accurate, sensitive, and powerful? That’s the perfect recipe for disaster.

The 70s were the heyday of those Altec Voice of the theatre speakers and were prevalent throughout the eighties also. Actually there are still quite a few in use, especially in older cinemas.

Those Yamaha speakers are actually not very good, and in my book bad. I have never understood their popularity. I would not put them in any room I had anything to do with for a second.

 

[ScareDe2]

The 70s were the heyday of those Altec Voice of the theatre speakers and were prevalent throughout the eighties also. Actually there are still quite a few in use, especially in older cinemas.

Those Yamaha speakers are actually not very good, and in my book bad. I have never understood their popularity. I would not put them in any room I had anything to do with for a second.

Prevalent throughout the eighties? With the emergence of Dolby sound, by the 90s, I’m sure most movie theaters had upgraded to new Dolby systems with dedicated speakers designed specifically for surround sound. As for the 80's specifically I can't tell for sure. Maybe a period of transition. Or maybe you mean the 70's more specifically.

Since I have multiple fabrics, woods, and objects in the room and nearby the Yamaha NS10M Horizontal Studio Monitors, I can assure they sound lifelike, and I don't think about them when I listen to music. For speech, it's as if the person was right in front of me, plus the room he is recording in. That’s all I hear. Nothing else. No exaggeration in any frequencies. Not bright. At all. I consider it a flat sounding speaker, just lacking in the deep bass department. Something that doesn’t bother me because I am not a bass head maniac. I listen at normal volume. Not very loud.

The Focal Scala Utopia speakers I took a listen to were sounding strangely similar to my first days with the Yamaha nearfield monitors, ear-bleeding good as I say and perhaps even more bright and abrasive, actually. Not the speakers fault.

 

[TLS Guy]

Prevalent throughout the eighties? With the emergence of Dolby sound, by the 90s, I’m sure most movie theaters had upgraded to new Dolby systems with dedicated speakers designed specifically for surround sound. As for the 80's specifically I can't tell for sure. Maybe a period of transition. Or maybe you mean the 70's more specifically.

Since I have multiple fabrics, woods, and objects in the room and nearby the Yamaha NS10M Horizontal Studio Monitors, I can assure they sound lifelike, and I don't think about them when I listen to music. For speech, it's as if the person was right in front of me, plus the room he is recording in. That’s all I hear. Nothing else. No exaggeration in any frequencies. Not bright. At all. I consider it a flat sounding speaker, just lacking in the deep bass department. Something that doesn’t bother me because I am not a bass head maniac. I listen at normal volume. Not very loud.

The Focal Scala Utopia speakers I took a listen to were sounding strangely similar to my first days with the Yamaha nearfield monitors, ear-bleeding good as I say and perhaps even more bright and abrasive, actually. Not the speakers fault.

I have not heard those Focals, but they do measure just a tad hot on the top end.

The NS 10s though are awful to listen to and measure badly with a huge midrange peak that stands out like a sore thumb.

In my view they are a terrible speaker and I have never understood their popularity.

Unfortunately there are far more bad speakers than good ones. Really good speakers are far and few between and does not correlate with price.

I design and build my own speakers and always have. So I have only myself to blame if things are not right.

 

[ScareDe2]

I have not heard those Focals, but they do measure just a tad hot on the top end.

The NS 10s though are awful to listen to and measure badly with a huge midrange peak that stands out like a sore thumb.

In my view they are a terrible speaker and I have never understood their popularity.

Unfortunately there are far more bad speakers than good ones. Really good speakers are far and few between and does not correlate with price.

I design and build my own speakers and always have. So I have only myself to blame if things are not right.

Well, I know about the ongoing myth that says the Yamaha NS10 sounds bad and that if your mix sounds good on them, it will sound good on any speakers. This is not true. The Yamaha NS10 sounds VERY GOOD, accurate and not fatiguing. I use them every day. These are my main speakers for years, and they are right in front of me as I type this, playing a Metallica track. There’s all sorts of belief that runs about the Yamaha NS10, and this video here sums them up very well:

I like them so much I have an extra pair I bought directly from Japan as a spare, just in case one breaks.

But anyway, I am sure that to make a good speaker sound good, it takes effort and dedication put into the room acoustics. If people want to believe this or that, it will keep more gems affordable, and I am fine with it.

If a speaker gets popular with casual listeners, it's probably because it delivers a smooth, warm, and rich sound, characteristics that are typically not associated with flat, accurate, or analytical speakers.

 

[TLS Guy]

Well, I know about the ongoing myth that says the Yamaha NS10 sounds bad and that if your mix sounds good on them, it will sound good on any speakers. This is not true. The Yamaha NS10 sounds VERY GOOD, accurate and not fatiguing. I use them every day. These are my main speakers for years, and they are right in front of me as I type this, playing a Metallica track. There’s all sorts of belief that runs about the Yamaha NS10, and this video here sums them up very well:

I like them so much I have an extra pair I bought directly from Japan as a spare, just in case one breaks.

But anyway, I am sure that to make a good speaker sound good, it takes effort and dedication put into the room acoustics. If people want to believe this or that, it will keep more gems affordable, and I am fine with it.

If a speaker gets popular with casual listeners, it's probably because it delivers a smooth, warm, and rich sound, characteristics that are typically not associated with flat, accurate, or analytical speakers.

Those speakers sound bad and there is data to prove it.

They have a very nasty midrange peak, which shows up like a sore thumb on measurements.

It is a total waste of time worrying about wall and floor coverings with speakers like that. The old saying: - "you can't put lipstick on a pig," apples here and in force.

 

[highfigh]

Let's talk about it. I can't use a pre-measured table of absorption coefficients for a given fabric. Since the fabric varies in density and quality, it varies in its ability to impact sound. Also, Sabine tries to predict the reverberation for the entire room but doesn't take into account the listener's position, whether the sound is chaotically diffused rather than uniformly distributed, your speaker setup, etc., and of course, as the website says: it all depends on what sound you are after.

I see acoustics more as an art, where it's better to use your ear and taste. Maybe measurements can complement the work, but I don't see how I can do that myself. I only work with limited information and have no tool to measure reverberation here.

Although I like that it mentions soft fabric. One reason I think movie theaters today sound bad compared to vintage (at least the ones I’ve visited) is because they use more synthetic fabric, which is most cost-efficient. I know for a fact that some companies sell products advertised as professional material, and you said it yourself, while in fact—and you don't need any measuring tools to find out—their material has zero impact on the sound, and in some cases, it even worsens the acoustics.

Why can't you use a pre-measured value?

Acoustics is a branch of Physics, not art. Good/better/best results are the result of knowledge of the science, how to use the available information and finding the space's characteristics.

You can use Room EQ Wizard- it shows reverberation and an app like ClapIR to get basic reverberation info- it's not what professionals use, but it gives you an idea if the treatments work.

Whether fabrics are natural or synthetic- it doesn't matter.

You're not making sense- "their material has zero impact on the sound, and in some cases, it even worsens the acoustics." is impossible. If it has zero impact, it can't make it worse.

 

[highfigh]

I refer to the '90s, movie theaters likely built during the '70s and '80s, basically, before synthetic materials took over the world with their plastic. I don't think the vintage cinema here had these speakers you mention. And the lateral wall speakers were already the norm. To be honest, it remains to be seen/heard if these Altec speakers would produce good results in the current acoustic space. Because in my experience, the better the speaker, the worse the sound when surrounded by synthetics. This experience comes from my listening session at my nearest audio center, where they had $100k worth of equipment in a sterile place, and my work with the Yamaha NS-10 studio monitors at home. These can sound absolutely brilliant and "neutral," but it takes massive effort to create the space to make them sound good.

You said it yourself: accurate, sensitive, and powerful? That’s the perfect recipe for disaster.

Synthetic fabrics have been used for over 100 years.

You have bought into something that's just not true- natural materials making a positive difference in sound seems like a tree-hugger idea.

 

[highfigh]

Well, I know about the ongoing myth that says the Yamaha NS10 sounds bad and that if your mix sounds good on them, it will sound good on any speakers. This is not true. The Yamaha NS10 sounds VERY GOOD, accurate and not fatiguing. I use them every day. These are my main speakers for years, and they are right in front of me as I type this, playing a Metallica track. There’s all sorts of belief that runs about the Yamaha NS10, and this video here sums them up very well:

I like them so much I have an extra pair I bought directly from Japan as a spare, just in case one breaks.

But anyway, I am sure that to make a good speaker sound good, it takes effort and dedication put into the room acoustics. If people want to believe this or that, it will keep more gems affordable, and I am fine with it.

If a speaker gets popular with casual listeners, it's probably because it delivers a smooth, warm, and rich sound, characteristics that are typically not associated with flat, accurate, or analytical speakers.

Talk to people who mix for a living- I don't know of anyone who actually likes the NS-10, but they use them because A) they're in a lot of studios and that means they don't need to bring their own speakers and B) they reveal sonic problems- that's one of their qualities. Using different speakers in every studio mix/mastering room would result in a horrendous range of sound quality for recordings. The range is bad enough as it is, but that would make it worse.

If you think designers of recording studios worry about natural vs synthetic for any reason other than fire retardant qualities, maybe you could talk to someone who designs them.

 

[ScareDe2]

No. The natural wool fibers have small pockets of air inside them, making them more efficient at taming high frequencies. Synthetics can do a job to an extent, given it has enough density, but it doesn't match the natural fibers. It's plastic.

Measuring stuff is useless for non-professionals in home acoustic design. What the pro does, I have no idea and don't have their tools either. To me, what you are trying to do is like measuring the exact composition of chemicals and atoms inside a fragrance or dish sauce. It's useless for this application. You need to work every day and find the acoustics that work for you.

Lol, I have the live proof in front of me that the Yamaha NS10 sounds great. You can't rely on frequency measurements and translate them to what a speaker sounds like inside your room. Flat speakers that measure flat, a straight line, can sound brighter and more abrasive in some situations. Taking a portion of what can be objectively measured and applying it as an overall conclusion is waste of time.

And if that can bring a counterargument to those who love numbers to this extent, the Yamaha NS10 has been measured in an anechoic chamber against 35 other nearfield monitors and showed good results. The keyword to find it back is the Newell/Holland paper about the Yamaha NS10.

 

[TLS Guy]

No. The natural wool fibers have small pockets of air inside them, making them more efficient at taming high frequencies. Synthetics can do a job to an extent, given it has enough density, but it doesn't match the natural fibers. It's plastic.

Measuring stuff is useless for non-professionals in home acoustic design. What the pro does, I have no idea and don't have their tools either. To me, what you are trying to do is like measuring the exact composition of chemicals and atoms inside a fragrance or dish sauce. It's useless for this application. You need to work every day and find the acoustics that work for you.

Lol, I have the live proof in front of me that the Yamaha NS10 sounds great. You can't rely on frequency measurements and translate them to what a speaker sounds like inside your room. Flat speakers that measure flat, a straight line, can sound brighter and more abrasive in some situations. Taking a portion of what can be objectively measured and applying it as an overall conclusion is waste of time.

And if that can bring a counterargument to those who love numbers to this extent, the Yamaha NS10 has been measured in an anechoic chamber against 35 other nearfield monitors and showed good results. The keyword to find it back is the Newell/Holland paper about the Yamaha NS10.

You can believe what you want, but those NS 10s do not sound good. I have been in a number of control rooms over the years, and could never understand how anyone could mix with those speakers.

The evidence is overwhelming that the bass/mid drivers in those units are suffering severe cone breakup before being crossed over. As well as causing a nasty peak, that also makes for a highly adverse dispersion pattern. I would absolutely never pass on one of my designs that behaved like that. It would be corrected or the design binned. They other issue is those units have no bass to speak of, and roll off 12db. per octave at 100 Hz. I can assure you there are far better speakers to be had than those, and you would not have to worry about your carpet!

 

[ScareDe2]

Talk to people who mix for a living- I don't know of anyone who actually likes the NS-10, but they use them because A) they're in a lot of studios and that means they don't need to bring their own speakers and B) they reveal sonic problems- that's one of their qualities. Using different speakers in every studio mix/mastering room would result in a horrendous range of sound quality for recordings. The range is bad enough as it is, but that would make it worse.

If you think designers of recording studios worry about natural vs synthetic for any reason other than fire retardant qualities, maybe you could talk to someone who designs them.

And just wanted to emphasize that they do the exact same thing with room acoustics, hence why I like them. What I understand is that you never heard a pair of NS10 who sounded good in relation with the room it was playing in. They are a cutting tool for both mix and room acoustics.

Ok look I have a good explanation let's try this: If the yamaha NS10 sounds good in your room, any speakers will sound good in your room. Like it that way? I just made up that new myth so we can close that chapter. lol

 

[TLS Guy]

And just wanted to emphasize that they do the exact same thing with room acoustics, hence why I like them. What I understand is that you never heard a pair of NS10 who sounded good in relation with the room it was playing in. They are a cutting tool for both mix and room acoustics.

Ok look I have a good explanation let's try this: If the yamaha NS10 sounds good in your room, any speakers will sound good in your room. Like it that way? I just made up that new myth so we can close that chapter. lol

Now you are really spouting nonsense!

 

[ScareDe2]

Now you are really spouting nonsense!

My understanding is that the distortion levels of the NS10M are below the threshold of perceptibility under normal listening conditions. I don't detect any distortion; if I did, I wouldn't use them.

 

[TLS Guy]

My understanding is that the distortion levels of the NS10M are below the threshold of perceptibility under normal listening conditions. I don't detect any distortion; if I did, I wouldn't use them.

We are talking frequency response errors which are the most significant issue.

When a cone starts to break up then you get a sharp rise in response, and also the axis response and off axis response do not match..

Here is the axis FR of an NS 10. In addition to a serious problem right in the most sensitive part of the midrange, the bass is rolling off just above 100 Hz. So to correct that they would need to be crossed to a sub at 150 Hz.

Here is the waterfall plot which is even more revealing.

There is a totally chaotic response between 1 and 2 Khz, which is the most critical range of human hearing.

To me that stood out like the proverbial sore thumb the first time I heard them.

These measurements have been confirmed and duplicated by numerous observers over the years.

They are just not good speakers and no one can seriously claim they are.

If you like that highly aberrant sound then that is the way you like it. But I could not begin to tolerate speakers like that.

 

[ScareDe2]

Why does the first graph show a decibel level near 95 dB? This is concert-like volume; no one can listen at this level for a prolonged period of time. It is deafening. The baseline should be around 70 dB, speech level and recommended for everyday listening.

I don't see anything dramatic in the frequency response when looking at the Newell/Holland paper compared to 35 nearfield monitors: https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/assetlibrary/n/ns10m.pdf

There is no perceivable distortion 1. and 2. it is acknowledged that this is not a bass-heavy speaker. To me, it sounds neutral/flat. This is far from ideal for most rooms, indeed. In my current room, these are not midrangy, can-sounding speaker that kills my ears with distorted sound. You seem to take measurements way too seriously.